Jump to content

User talk:AnonEMouse/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15→Archive 18


sockpuppet

We got another sockpuppet, User:Evil3005, who makes false statements about Harry Potter. What should we do about this user? Block him/her?--Braves3005 18:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Yup. :-(. That's the pattern, Bratz, wrestling, and now Harry Potter I see. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/216.83.121.194 Kind of a shame, with all that dedication, he could be adding useful stuff. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 12:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

My recent RfB

Thank you so much for your participation in my recent RfB. Though it closed with 72% support (below the required 90%), I'm still quite pleased at the outpouring of support shown by a fair percentage of the community.

I'm currently tabulating and calculating all opposing and neutral arguments to help me better address the community's concerns about my abilities as a bureaucrat. If you'd like, you can follow my progress (and/or provide additional suggestions) at User:EVula/admin/RfB notes. Thanks again!

I'm also thankful that someone else with some sense sees what a valuable policy WP:EVULA can be. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Jenna Haze "External Links"

Thanks so much for your participation in this question.

Note: I don't think you are blind as a bat... those things happens... sometimes :-). Purplehayes2006 13:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Ral315 RFA

Hi mouse, just noticed that at Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Ral315 you put your support comment in the oppose section. Was this deliberate? --JayHenry 15:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

And... I see that while I was typing this you moved your comment. Sorry! --JayHenry 15:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

RE:RfB/Ral315

Okay. I just wanted to make sure it wasn't an EVula oppose. :-) —« ANIMUM » 15:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Dana_Plato_mugshot.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Dana_Plato_mugshot.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 15:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Yasmine_Bleeth_mugshot.jpg

I have tagged Image:Yasmine_Bleeth_mugshot.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 21:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Yasmine_Bleeth_mugshot.jpg

Hi, Thank you for uploading Image:Yasmine_Bleeth_mugshot.jpg,however it would be much appreciated if you could expand or clarify the sourcing information you have provided in the image summary.,In particular which law enforcment agency (I'm assuming it's the local police department) took the photograph originally? ShakespeareFan00 21:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Yup. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Kathy_Boudin_mugshot.jpg

I have tagged Image:Kathy_Boudin_mugshot.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 12:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


Your bot request

Hi AnonEMouse I wanted to let you know that Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AfdlBot is labeled as needing your comment. Please visit the above link to reply to the requests. Thanks! --ST47Talk 21:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

My RfB

Thank you, AnonEMouse, for participating in my RfB, which ended unsuccessfully with a final tally of (80/22/3).
I shall continue to work on behalf of the community's interests and improve according to your suggestions.
Most sincere regards, Húsönd 00:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Obrigado, AnonEMouse, por participares no meu RfB, que terminou sem sucesso com um resultado final de (80/22/3).
Continuarei a trabalhar em prol dos interesses da comunidade e a melhorar segundo vossas sugestões. Calorosos cumprimentos, Húsönd 00:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks • Obrigado • Gracias • Merci • Danke • Спасибо • Tack • Kiitos
Esker • Köszönöm • Takk • Grazie • Hvala • ありがとう • 謝謝 • 谢谢

Thank you!

Thanks in part to your support, I am Wikipedia's newest bureaucrat. I will do my best to live up to your confidence and kind words. Andre (talk) 09:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Before you recommend admonishment and potential desysopping, I would love for you to find an example of bad behavior by me. Otherwise you're just encouraging people like John254 to take differences of opinion to the Noticeboard. He's using BLP as a stick, and that's not what it's for. --The Cunctator 15:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Give me a moment, I'll either find specific conflicts of interest between the two accounts or withdraw my comments. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Other controversial articles edited by both accounts:

Or maybe I was just using the different accounts because I couldn't use The Cunctator account at work (or let them know that it was associated with me, which is why I couldn't acknowledge the association between User At Work and The Cunctator). I've never claimed to be perfect, just that I act in good faith. People have misinterpreted my actions from day one. After all, Larry Sanger, considers me WIkipedia's Number One Troll.
I would ask you if the Jack Abramoff articles represent poorly sourced, inaccurate, biased, slanderous coverage of an incredibly complex and controversial case or not. They're certainly not perfect (Jack Abramoff timeline continues to be a mess) but they represent a pretty remarkable achievement of coverage, I think. --The Cunctator 16:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I did not see the edits to the template; given the timing, that is a problem. It would certainly have been better to name your alternate account User:The Cunctator At Work, as I believe some admins have done similarly to avoid the appearance of impropriety. I am also concerned with User At Work's general approach to biographies of conservatives. You make wholesale reversions ("revert whitewashing") and support versions of the biographies that, while largley well-sourced, are relentlessly negative and give no indication that the subjects have ever done anything positive in their life. Grover Norquist is "Grosser Nosetwist" and is one of the 101 politicians who are ruining America but doesn't he have any friends or colleagues who say nice things about him? Does he have not a single positive accomplishment? Similar problems with John Doolittle. And there are at least 6 or 8 articles that both accounts edited in 2006, although you have not overlapped contribs in 2007. Thatcher131 16:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Again, I don't think you've been intentionally abusive. I do think you have been playing very fast and loose with that alternate account, far faster and looser than we'd prefer admins to. Now that you have marked it as an alternate account, it should be permissible, but note that it wasn't marked that way at the start of this. I don't think a formal warning and admonishment about having done so for years(!) is at all out of line. I'd also be much happier if you
  1. stated conclusively and straight out that no other account editing Jack Abramoff or other related articles is secretly also you, and
  2. acknowledged that if it were found to be, desysopping, at the least, would be appropriate. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I didn't add the "Grosser Nosetwist" info to Grover Norquist in the first place, nor did I complain when John254 redeleted it. Which is one of the points I'm trying to make. John254 did a massive deletion. I restored some of the content, editing some of it. He made a more judicious deletion, which I thought was fine. It's only because he is yelling about BLP violations that anyone has to care. My understanding is that editors are supposed to assume good faith and work together civilly to improve articles. John254 is acting like there was an edit war when there wasn't.
One thing to note is that the mean stuff about Norquist is true--it was unbalanced but not defamatory, as John254 is arguing. Another thing to note is that I wasn't the one who originally contributed the content John254 is so unhappy about. Another thing to note is that the sources we can draw on for political figures, primarily the political press, write about the controversial matters involving political figures. And it's generally what makes them interesting and how they affect history. It's often true that they love animals and are excellent cooks or voted to rename a bridge in a community leader's honor, but that has little bearing on their place in history. That said, for example, I agree that the Grover Norquist and Americans for Tax Reform articles need more content about their work and philosophy, and I welcome another editor contributing that. Unfortunately editors seem more interested in deleting information than adding it sometimes. --The Cunctator 17:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I'm not sure if you realize there are two issues here. One is that you're arguing with an editor who is not an administrator about a specific edit or even specific series of edits to a specific article. Eh... I'm sure that's important too, but that's not what I am primarily concerned with; no one is advocating deletion of the whole article, and I'm sure it will work out one way or another. The other is that a highly experienced user, one of maybe 100 of the most experienced users on the whole Wikipedia, an administrator, has maintained an untagged alternate account that has been used in conjunction with his main to edit quite a few rather controversial articles for over a year, while quite a few others believed it to be a completely different person. For example, look at User talk:Sholom, one of the main editors of the whole Jack Abramoff chain -- he clearly thinks that User At Work and Cunctator are different people; he talks to UAW as a peer, and asks TC for advice as a mentor. While all this may not be strictly abusive in itself, it looks bad, and your admin status combined with all that history you've got makes it reflect badly on the whole project. There are specific legitimate uses of multiple accounts, they're mainly for segregation of edits by topic, not for editing the same article as two different identities. While I can't speak for Thatcher131, I wouldn't be surprised if he feels likewise. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I recognize the distinct issues. I disagree with your interpretation of User talk:Sholom; the only mention of User:The Cunctator on that page predates the existence of the User At Work account and Sholom's reference to The Cunctator is clearly not as a mentor but as a fellow editor who was involved with the pages in question, as is clear from the original context. I respect your interest and intent, but you seem to be consistently misinterpreting the record, which I will continue to stand behind.--The Cunctator 18:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your spelling fixes on my essay :)

I am truly grateful for this:)--Alexia Death 19:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Glad to help. :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

FAR on ID

AnonEMouse: I left a comment on the FAR: just so you know, what I was trying to say was that both you and SV have a point. Sandy's comment was on, well, sandy ground.  :) •Jim62sch• 22:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Sydnee Steele

Can you do me a favour and keep an eye on the Sydnee Steele article? I've been in email contact with Sydnee advising her about how she can go about uploading a picture of her choice to the aricle, and I want to make sure that when she does upload it, the image sticks around. She's mildly frustrated that her previous attempts have been deleted. Tabercil 01:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand this correctly, Tabercil: The model herself is volunteering images, and these are being deleted? A lot of us uploaded images with the understanding that "fair use" was fair use. Now those images are being purged en masse. Knowing that "Free" images will be deleted too, eventually, will certainly save lot of time messing around trying to provide those images... Dekkappai 02:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I've advised her to put them up with Creative Commons license. I forget the original reason for the deletions off-hand but I suspect it was something along the lines of "copyvio" in that she supposedly didn't have the license for them... Tabercil 04:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I've looked around through the history of her Special:DeletedContributions/SydneeSteele, and it looks like she kept trying to upload Image:SydneeSteeleHome.jpg under slightly different filenames, but continuously with a "permission to use on Wikipedia" license. That kept being deleted, (mostly by User:^demon) due to not being sufficient, since one of the ideas of Wikipedia is to allow its parts to be reused by others as well. But it looks like the current upload is fine - it's under a dual GFDL Creative Commons Share-Alike license, either of which would have worked, so it's even more than sufficient. I think we can add it to the article. I also think we should add http://www.thelovegeneration.com AVN article and http://myspace.com/sydneesteele to the article.TheLoveGeneration.com About Me page--AnonEMouse (squeak) 12:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I worked on the article a bit. :-) Want to comment on Talk:Sydnee Steele about the remaining image question? -- AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

One day at a time...

I don't know I'll just take it one day at a time. Lighthead 00:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

FAC

If you have time, you might want to take a look at the FAC on general relativity. I think that the article is excellent, but the FAC has been hijacked by people against "introductions". Awadewit | talk 08:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Ack! The problem is that I'm not nearly a physicist, so don't know whether sentences such as "By cosmic standards, gravity throughout the solar system is comparatively weak." are as good as can be written without blowing the reader's cerebral cortex, or as vague as they read to me. On a larger (general?) scale, though no doubt simplified, the article still isn't simple. The hijackers' idea that simplified articles are bad in themselves is directly contradicted by a MOS guideline, so if it looked like the debate was coming down to that, I'd certainly say so, but it looks like there are enough people who are more comfortable with the physics saying so that I don't need to. I will try a few more times to read the article itself, so I can actually give some intelligent evaluation or criticism at the FAC, but can't yet. Sorry. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 07:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm no physicist either, but I've read a lot of "explanations" of general relativity for the layperson (in books such as The Elegant Universe) and I think that this is one of the best that I've ever seen. I don't think that the article is simple, but I think that it is simple enough for the reader that the primary editor envisioned (he describes that reader at the peer review I did). No article on general relativity is going to be comprehensible to everyone, but I think that he did a good job for the reader who comes to the article wanting to know more and who has heard about blackholes, etc. I think that both physics-people and non-physics people need to support the article, especially since it is written for non-physics people like us! I understand your reticence, though; I'm just flabbergasted at the response to such an obviously good article. So many mediocre articles show up at FAC and this is what happens when a good one does? It has greatly increased my frustration with FAC, I'm afraid, especially since it has made the editor skittish about FAC now. See here for something else that did the same. I know that I could barely read the article due to that one dash. :) Awadewit | talk 08:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Alice Barnham

You wrote: "Any suggestion as to how to handle this issue on the Alice Barnham article?"

I don't believe the speculation on homosexuality needs to be interjected into the Alice Barnham article. It appears that Bacon married Alice to get himself more acceptable for holding public office, and to let King James know (by marrying a "commoner") that he did not intend to challenge him for the monarchy (since he was the som of Queen Elizabeth). Arion 09:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


The only problem I would have with the Alice Barnham article perpetuating the homosexuality theory about Francis Bacon is the protrayal of those theorists as "scholars" - they are a few authors who have questionable methods. For example, Alan Bray's book Homosexuality in Renaissance England states that male servants were male prostitutes, and since Francis Bacon had male servants, he must have been having sexual relations with them (!):

"There is though a further form of homosexual prostitution which it is possible to distinguish, and there are parallels with heterosexual prostitution here also: the young man living in a household, nominally with the status of a servant but haying a relationship with the master of the household with strong overtones of prostitution. This might be a matter of no more than a few days, as in John Marston's description of the sodomite whose personal servant — apparently a page — is really a prostitute who has been 'closely' i.e. secretly hired:
"But ho, what Ganymede is that doth grace
"The gallant's heels, one who for two days' space Is closely hired?
"It might also be a matter lasting weeks, months, or even years. This is presumably part of what Middleton, Brathwaite and Wilmot, quoted earlier in a different context, had in mind; their pages and 'private parasites' seem to have been prostitutes, albeit established in the household, as much as they were servants. It also partly explains the ambivalent position of some of the young men in the households of Francis Bacon and the Earl of Castlehaven: it is not clear whether these young men were servants or a kind of domestic prostitute, and perhaps one would be wrong to try and make a sharp distinction between the two. The relationship between client and prostitute — as indeed between teacher and pupil — had obvious analogies with the basic and influential relationship of master and servant; in the domestic prostitute the two are hardly distinguishable."

The real story that I have been discovering is much more interesting than the simple pet theories that he must have been a homosexual. For example there were the money issues . . .

Francis was secretly publishing materials for the Freemasons, Rosicrucians, Spear-Shakers, Knights of the Helmet, as well as publishing the materials he had written under the pen name of "Shake-Speare". Alice was very interested in fame and fortune, and when there were no large reserves of money left in the later years of their marriage, there was constant complaining about where was all the money going. I am waiting for some additional research materials that I had ordered several weeks ago, and when I assemble a rough draft of a paragraph proposal, I will submit it to you for your editing and modifactions. Arion 16:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that certainly sounds interesting, but the Bacon/Shakespeare theory is no less controversial than the Bacon homosexual theory, and slipping it into the Alice Barnham article as a way of explaining marital strife seems a bit of a stretch. I understand that Alice was supposed to be highly interested in fame and fortune, but surely being Shakespeare could not have been that much of a money sink. Shakespeare may not have been universally acknowledged as greatest English language writer of all time just then, but he was generally acknowledged as at least one of the top 3-4 playwrights at the time; it's hard to believe anyone can lose money being a successful playwright. But clearly you know more about it than I do; write it, let's see. Don't feel you have to run it by me before putting it in; I wrote most of the article, but I don't own it. Put it in, and we'll both edit it "mercilessly" as the blurb at the bottom of the page says. :-)
Also, I am still interested in keeping at least some kind of mention of the homosexuality bit. I understand that the books speculating about Bacon's homosexuality may not be correct, but they do exist, we need to say something about them. Perhaps we could put both that and the Shakespeare theories under a "speculations" section, or add additional references to books which explicitly question their scholarship or otherwise argue with them. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Heaven and Hell (band) Assessment

Thanks for your timely assessment. I took what amounted to a fan page and pared it down considerably. I understand that the sections are short but once historical information (the only information that would be pertinent) begins to be added, it would open the floodgates once again on info that is already contained in the Black Sabbath article. The only fix I can see is to revert back to a single section which was cited as the reason why it was a start class previously. Any suggestions would be welcomed. FlthyGunslinger 23:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The basic idea is you want to have more content, and organize it well. Take a look at the ultimate goal, the articles in the Wikipedia:Featured article#Music section. There are a number of band articles, and this should be similar. What do reliable sources write about the band? Look for more of that, read it, write it. Look at AC/DC or Genesis (band) or Pink Floyd ... --AnonEMouse (squeak) 23:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Sorry about the misstep in assessing the Brianna Banks article. In the WPBiography project there I think is an "auto" attribute that can be used to automatically assess articles. Can we do that as well? It might save some time and the occasional inacurracies that come with too much editing. Arundhati lejeune 18:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where that is, I'm afraid ... can you make a link to point it out? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Take a look here . . . it says at WP:WPBIO that the "auto" parameter is for the use of bots. It calls the Stubclass template . . . I gather that there is a bot that runs every so often and automatically classifies articles with the auto tag on their Templates . . . it does seem to aid in the stub sorts. Maybe if we could include that in our template then it might save some effort. Arundhati lejeune 03:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Reply, and request for further of your thoughts on that, at User_talk:FT2/Article_supervision#Discussion. FT2 (Talk | email) 06:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Hybrid proposal that occurred to me based on your ideas, that just "clicked", and I think might actually meet both aims quite well (quality and simple easy process). Comments? :) FT2 (Talk | email) 12:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

A nice hunk of ricotta cheese for a helpful mouse

Thanks for fixing the diff at my post to WP:AN. Cheers, DurovaCharge! 08:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Requesting free content

I know you have an interest in obtaining free content, especially pictures - I've written an essay/how-to on the subject at User:Videmus Omnia/Requesting free content and would welcome your feedback. Feel free to spread it around if you think it's at all useful. Videmus Omnia Talk 22:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Sasha Grey and User:Madjabuds

Quick question: do you have these two items on your watch list? Reason for my question is that someone added Sasha's real name and linked to a picture of her driver's license as the cite. Madjabuds (who is Sasha) pulled the name out but left edit summaries of "whoever posted my id better not do it again, i have a lawyer iand i don't like using him so do not re-post my id!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!sasha grey" and "if i have to use my lawyer it will be for wiki users, not wiki or it's staff sasha grey ms.sashagrey@yahoo.com'" in the process. You might want to look and/or act further than what I've already done. Tabercil 05:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I wasn't watching either. Will now (for what that's worth, since my watch list is getting somewhat large). I think we should Wikipedia:oversight that edit; probably the poster child for use of primary sources. I'll ask.
Meanwhile, I will ask one more time - please do consider taking up the mop. This is what we do.
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
(The ad is a bit of a humorous overstatement; but you have got about half of those qualifications, so should do fine.) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 12:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Fine. Fine. I'll stand up for admin status. I'm still not sure I know all I should know to be a proper admin - for instance I never knew about Oversight (thought it is logical it should exist) - but you've worn me down on the topic. However, since you're so insistent on it, you get to write the initial RfA. <G> Tabercil 13:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Well you know now, right? :-) Anyway, when in doubt, take things slowly, ask questions, one of the most important things to remember is that there are 1200+ other admins, so if you aren't sure, someone else will know, will be sure, and will cover for you, just ask. WP:AN and WP:AN/I are good for general and urgent questions, but having a mentor is useful too. The first few months I had the mop I bugged User:Crzrussian, I guess you can bug me. User:Joe Beaudoin Jr. is still around, and more experienced than I am, in case you want to bug him, but he's much less active, editing once a month or so. Anyway, it'll be on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tabercil, but give me a couple of edits at it, I'll tell you when it's ready. It's my first RFA nom. :-). --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey, side question. We've been going through and tagging the various articles with status (stub, start, FA, etc.) and importance tags. Is it possible to pull a list of all the articles in the Pornography category that fall into the Stub category? I'm curious if I can spot any other articles that are similar to Jessica Darlin in there... y'know stubs that arguably need to be start quality at the least. Tabercil 14:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, absolutely, that's one of the main things this is for. That's what Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography/Assessment#Quality_scale starts with! Rather than give you a direct link to the category, I'll make you click that link (maybe you'll read the rest of that section too). :-)
Actually I'd found it myself... rather interesting reading clicking through the categories. For instance, did you know someone classified Jeff Stryker as Top-priority? Though what I would really like to be when I'm at [Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Pornography articles by quality statistics]] is to able to do is to click on a number in one of the boxes which brings back say all articles that are both B-class and no importance, or Unassessed and high... Tabercil 14:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw that Jeff Stryker rating, and thought about changing, but ... well, he is probably the best known Gay male porn star. Eh. I wouldn't have marked him more than High myself, since I don't think he's really known very much outside the industry, but I won't go to war over it. Yes, I would also like to be able to find the intersection. Maybe a bot would be useful. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Back to the nomination - I think it's done. You like? Anything you want me to tweak? If not, follow Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/nominate#What_to_do_if_you_are_nominated_by_someone_else accept, answer the questions, and add your page to the main WP:RFA page, put it on your watchlist, and stand back. One Very, Very, Very important bit of advice. You will get neutrals or even opposes, possibly because of WP:P*, it's not a warm fluffy bunnies sort of area for a primary interest. When you do, take a deep breath, remember it's not the end of the world, don't take them personally, and if you choose to respond to the opposing editors, be brief, be polite, don't write a lot, assume good faith, and be brief. If you write too much or too heatedly in response to an opposition it reads like you're combative, and I've seen more good admin nominations go down over just that issue than any other. Did I mention be brief? :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I've accepted it and filled in the blank spots. I don't see anything in what you wrote where I would have said it differently. Tabercil 15:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Good edits

Nice work on Your Mommy Kills Animals. [1] SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 14:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Whew! You liked! I'm glad. I was kind of worried you wouldn't, actually, there are dark rumors floating around about your personal feelings towards the subject; but I just couldn't resist sourcing an article that probably would have been deleted without sourcing. Thank you, I appreciate it ... and thank you for being able to see all sides. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
It's best not to believe every dark rumor that's floating around. :-) Seriously, my priority is always good writing and sourcing, and your writing is really good. It flows really nicely. I was thinking of nominating it for deletion but obviously I won't now, so thank you. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 15:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

:)

That was a fast response! I'd do the other too, but like I noted in the WP comment, I'm not sure which it'd be. Doesn't help that the border between the two ratings is so fuzzy, and I have no idea how much more info there is that could be added. If there's a lot, I'd say it's still start, if there's not much, go for B, but the Air Force career part's making me want to keep it at start all on its own. Either she was with them or not, what's with all the "she says... she claims..." indecisiveness? -Bbik★ 17:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

All right, let's keep it at start, then. Thanks again! --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

BLP controversy

Hi, Anon. Apparently I've found myself involved in an editing controversy. Help from a third party would be appreciated. Here's the story as I see it: An editor has been removing mention of rape at the Sada Abe article. His last removal claimed it was unsourced. I took him at good faith, and left it removed until I could source it. I then located a copy of a book on the subject which quotes from the police interrogation of Abe herself, in which she states that she had been raped. I then put the mention of the rape back into the article, properly sourcing it. The same editor has now reverted with threats that this is a BLP violation which will be reported. He further claims that mention of the rape, though disclosed by Abe herself-- an ex-prostitute arrested for strangling her lover and severing his genitalia in 1936-- could be interpreted as an attack on a living person. (She disappeared in 1970, and would be 102 years old if alive today.) This seems an odd assertion since the rape was apparently used by Abe in an effort to make understandable her state of mind at the time of the castration/murder. Anyway, any help in this little controversy would be appreciated. Dekkappai 22:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I restored the info (which seems properly sourced) but was reverted. I gave the user a notice for WP:3RR. Videmus Omnia Talk 22:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Ward Churchill

From what I've been able to tell, one of the editors in particular in that dispute edits mostly for the purpose of reverting a small number of articles, and is willing to wait out months of protection in order to revert. Is there any indication on the Talk: page that a consensus has been reached? I rather doubt it, knowing the individuals involved, but you could check. Jayjg (talk) 23:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm willing to try. It's been 2 months, that's not really "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit". At worst, it gets vandalized, we can re-protect. But I asked on Talk:Ward Churchill#Unprotection? Image? anyway. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 23:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

If I were you, I'd offer to unlock it with the proviso that the first editor to revert it will be blocked for a week. Jayjg (talk) 00:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know what the debate was about, so don't know how to recognize a revert specifically. What was the debate about? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 00:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

No idea, but if Annoynmous or Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters make any major deletion, then you'll know the revert has happened. Jayjg (talk) 01:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Just in case you don't know.

A fork named Ward Churchill misconduct issues has survived speedy deletion but has been blanked and protected until afd can take place. It is an attack page so expect the worst on the Ward Churchill page and welcome to the milieu. Albion moonlight 11:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter book refs

Hi AnonEMouse. Perhaps my deletion reason wasn't clear, so I have updated it. What is the reasoning for a specific book reference for Harry Potter books? Also, why is that template using another template to form it's final output? That is bad practice. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Charlotte Cleverley-Bisman

I gather you got permission for this image by emailing the father? When I closed the AFD on her I did take under advisory that we inferred the father would approve, but if he directly approves, I'd be interested in knowing. Thanks. WilyD 14:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I wrote the permission on the image. I sent email to the parents on the website, and the father answered (it took a few days, I sent the email when the AFD closed). I didn't go into the complex details about the BLP, RFAR, DRV, AFD mess, I just asked for GFDL permission to use the image, but I did specify my goal was that it would be used on our article, and included a link to our article. He gave GFDL permission to use all the images on that site, and wrote "Thanks for your help on this." So, yes, I am pretty sure he explicitly approves of having an article. Right now the article is rather short to use more than one image, but I plan to look at expanding the article further, and if it grows will probably stick in another appropriate image where it seems to fit. Feel free to help! --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Nice work! People seem to be generally willing to contribute images like this, it's a shame more people are trying to obtain them. Videmus Omnia Talk 14:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I'd frankly debated whether to email him and just ask him how he felt about an article (without going into details, just mentioning there was some debate about the ethics of chronicling a young person in an unfortunate situation) but hadn't gotten around to it. I often wonder how most people who have bios feel about them - a couple of my colleages do, and I've spoken to one about it. He didn't mind, and actually was a little amused by the seriousness people displayed when his bio was nominated for deletion (it was kept). I also know Scott Tremaine has looked at his bio (prompted by someone else) and had no objections. But I wonder about the wider world reaction ... Anyways, good work, and thanks for the response. WilyD 14:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
You've done some great work on that article - well done and thanks. violet/riga (t) 15:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

No offense meant

Hi, AnonEMouse. Just to let you know. This edit summary has a typo. No offense intended or implied. ;) Dekkappai 20:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack, BLP violation, indefinite block ... :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Jeez, you're tough. Should have kept my mouth shut... ;) Dekkappai 20:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Commons

I finally got around to creating a Commons account - does that project need more trusted Flickr reviewers, and, if so, should I apply or wait until my account gets a little older? The only Commons folks I know are you and Quadell, who's an admin there. I'm also going to change my "requesting free content" page to tell folks to upload to Commons by default if the license is free.

I got a bunch more photos by e-mail today - going to have to step up my efforts to keep up with stay ahead of your images page. :) Videmus Omnia Talk 00:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Then Quadell clearly knows more since I know little. :-) I just got the "trusted" thing since I noticed it's a "speedy accept" for admins on other projects, and that way I could at least tag my own Flick finds. But then I tagged a few by others as well. :-) I'm sure they can always use more, if you apply, drop me a note here and I'll support you with bells on. What do you mean "keep up with" my images page - you have 10 times as many! 8-O --AnonEMouse (squeak) 00:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Starship

Hi. Yes, I had the Starship on my todo list for forever, after starting and writing the Auckland Hospital article. Please leave a note in the edit history when you are done, so I can go at it again - one of your edits did remove some stuff of mine. Cheers and happy editing. Ingolfson 00:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

No, go ahead, I'm done for a while at least. I tried to do a merge rather than an overwrite, I'm sure it's in the edit history. Sorry! --AnonEMouse (squeak) 00:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
This was going to be a barnstar of diligence, but you seem to have plenty of those already, so I thought I'd mix it up. :-) If there is one thing I can count when I see the signature of AnonEMouse in a deletion discussion, it is a well-reasoned, thoughtful and very civil argument. (Oh, and this is also a much belated thank you for the barnstar you gave me months ago!) IronGargoyle 04:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, thank you! But don't feel you owe me anything, you thoroughly deserved that one. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Evolution in the Denver Post

Hi there, I've reverted that change, as the version they examined was the old draft before our internal peer-review and the FA process. The newspaper article is therefore completely out of date. All the best Tim Vickers 04:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Umm ... OK. So? We still keep reviews of old versions linked from the article. I see
and others - why should this link be removed? It's a useful and interesting bit of article history, that a reasonably well known newspaper took the effort to take this article and get it reviewed by and experienced university professor, and that he liked it. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 04:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but to me the way the new version read was like these were things that needed fixed with the current article, rather than things that were fixed in response to the review. Maybe just my point of view, since it was this review that prompted my drive to bring the article back to FA. Tim Vickers 15:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah. I think I put in the date wrong in the template, I wrote June, but it was actually either April 30 or May 1. Here, let me put it back with the correct date, and an explicit note that this was a pre-FA review. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Better? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Great! Thanks. Tim Vickers 17:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Jenna Jameson

Not a problem ... glad to be of help. Thanks for the aid with the question on my talk page. Valrith 20:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!!!

Thanks for the barnstar!!!! Arundhati lejeune 16:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Embarrasing topic

Thought I'd post here rather than on the thread on G's page as he seems bashful. Errol Flynn was rumoured to be well built - hence the smoker's joke:-

"Do you have a match?"
"Not since Errol Flynn died, no."

regards --Joopercoopers 07:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Mary: A Fiction

I thought I would take you up on your offer to be my MOS guru during an FAC. I believe that Mary: A Fiction (a Wollstonecraft novel) is ready for FAC. Let me know if you have time in the coming weeks to do an FAC. Also, I would be happy to know of any improvements that you think could be made to the article. I haven't been able to get much in the way of peer reviews. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 13:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! :)

Thank you for your beautiful words and warm wishes on my birthday, dear Mousey! I took a well-deserved one-day wikibreak and spent it with my family and my friends... and actually had a beer after months of forced abstinence! :) Of course, there's no way I'd forget about you, so I saved a great, tasty piece of chocolate cake just for you - but sorry, no beer left! Again, thank you so much for taking the time to wish me well, and have a wonderful day, my friend! Love, Phaedriel - 17:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Words are useless when the time to talk to someone as special and dear as you comes, Mousey. So please, forgive my shortcomings, and I trust the great virtual hug I'm sending your way suffices. Thanks so much again! xxx, Sharon

Quick Question

I ran across your reply regarding reliable sources for the BLP:Sara Gilbert issue, and just have a quick question. Is there a list here that details what web sites aren't allowed, or aren't considered "reliable" sources? I have been digging through a ton of policy pages recently trying to get more in-depth knowledge about the innerworkings of Wikipedia, but (among other things) that's one issue I still don't have a clear grasp on. I could have sworn I'd seen IMDB referenced before (although I don't remember where), so I just wondered if there was a specific list of those not allowed. (I do know that photobucket links aren't allowed, etc.) If you can help, thank you, if not, I'll keep digging! :)

P.S. I love your user name, lol.Ariel♥Gold 21:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources. It's not a list, it's the principle of editorial review, that there is, in theory, more than just one writer saying this is true, but that the writer has an editor or even a whole fact checking department going over their work and making sure the publication doesn't get sued. :-) Now in practice, we can't tell whether the editor has being doing that job, for example the New York Times is usually seen as the pinnacle of newspapers, but Jayson Blair showed that even they don't always check very much. But the point is that Curve (magazine) seems to be a real magazine, with a 6 year publishing history, real writers who sign their work, and real editors who at least in theory can check the work. This is unlike the TV.com, IMDB.com websites before, which have a reputation for printing anonymous contributions, and the other websites which don't have any editorial review. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

That helps a ton, thanks so much! I have added it to my bookmarks page. You rock! Ariel♥Gold 21:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

That is very kind of you. It has helped a lot. Thank you! SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 23:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi, AnonEMouse, and thanks for your participation in my RfA. I've withdrawn it, and will be writing up an "analysis" of it, which will soon be available at User:Giggy/RfA/Giggy when it's done. Please come around when you get the chance, and give me feedback on how I can improve. Thanks again, Giggy UCP 04:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments on Amy M AFD

Hi - I notice that you mention that Videmus Omnia is new, and people shouldn't be harsh on him. He's not new. He put up a delete bot in the first hours of membership, and in the last week, he's RFC'd two administrators, as well as putting Renner up for COI, BLP and deleting the Amy photo and article. He also deleted all the pictures of four people with whom he had a minor difference of opinion. There are two open ANIs on him. If he's new, its not a good start - but he's not new. Also, he claims to have changed names to protect his privacy (SV had him blocked as a sock - by Ryulong) but his user talk page has a whole new identity, with pictures of his wife, etc. He's supposed to be a military guy, but he edits 24/7. Anyways. I'm new too, but not new. My old account edited too much of certain areas which I have a lot to do with, and I gave out TMI on my talk page, and someone in real life ID'd me, so I quit wikipedia for a while, and rejoined. I might have to change names, after Durova has accused me of being a sock, or whatever. She RFCU'ed me for being Alkivar! I had gone over and made a report of VO's multiple attacks on 4-5 people, and she assumed I was a spa, which I'm not. I only found out about the alkivar case, due to the VO thing on james r. But whatever. That's what you get when you take a stand here. Anyways, VO's behavior actually is relevant to the AFD, because it is part of a larger pattern of disruptions - and for a 6-week stay on wikipedia, it is quite impressive. BlueSapphires 16:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Mihaljevic. You misread my comment. User:JamesRenner, the article author, is the one who is new, so people shouldn't be harsh on him. User:Videmus Omnia, the article AFD nominator, is amazing at getting excellent images released, and alienating him would be a huge loss to the Wikipedia. Let's give them each a break. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
You are right - I did misunderstand you. That's great that he is good at uploading images and deleting unfree ones. The problem seems to be with anyone who disagrees with his image decisions, and that included in this case Renner. Given that this is a pattern, it does have bearing, I feel on the article AFD. VO's skill doesnt allow him to attack people who disagree with him, and that' the topic of his two ANIs . Two days ago he deleted all/most images of some people he had a minor dispute with, and also put up for AFD most of Renner-related things. Anyways, this isn't a good case for GFDL obtention. For a little dead girl GFDL would render her picture open to misuse. GFDL is good for Beyonce or Britney. They can be reused in various contexts. Not this. My 2 cents. BlueSapphires 16:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

So I got the mop...

Any suggestions on what admin-specific readings I should be starting to go through, and what order? E.g., the actual mechanics of how to do some of the admin-related stuff? Tabercil 17:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely!
  1. Wikipedia:Advice for new administrators - advice
  2. Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list - the more important policies
  3. Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide - mechanics
  4. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard - discussion
  5. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents - more heated discussion :-)
  6. Category:Administrative backlog - stuff to do
That looks like a lot, but don't panic. You are not required to know everything at once, or do everything at once. One of the most important things to remember is that there are 1200 other administrators, all, by definition, more experienced than you. So if you aren't sure about something ... don't do it ... if it is really important and really needs to be done, someone else will cover for you. Again, if in doubt, don't. There is usually plenty to do at the backlog categories that is useful, absolutely obvious, and not controversial. For a while, stick to that. You'll know when, and if, you feel comfortable to do the more controversial stuff -- if you never do, that's fine too, the non-controversial work is no less useful to get done. Feel free to ask questions, though - me or someone else, or WP:AN or WP:AN/I. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, one of the fun things you can start with is picking the little template for the corner of your user page. It's a good idea to mark yourself as a wielder of the mop. The options are at Template:Administrator. :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The large penis you seek

I don't know if you saw my reply to your question about men with large penises on Giano's talk page. You might want to read our article on Milton Berle. Raul654 20:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

PS - Sorry, but I couldn't help myself from choosing that section header... Raul654 20:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that is useful, but wasn't quite the one I was looking for, I'm pretty sure I recall some user talk page discussion about an early twentieth century society gentleman. But I can just wait, since as we all know, men with big penises are common on Wikipedia. "There seems to be a proliferation of editors who have enormous equipment." :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AnonEMouse/Archive_13&oldid=1190109971"